<quoted text>I've been following the string theory for years now. I first heard it from Michio Kaku. I like how Brian Greene explained it on Ted Talks. Very cool concept. Although physicists study it on the quantum level, the quarks and the vibrations and frequencies in it, I believe that dimensions just doesn't exist in the physical realm. I like to use this theory to explain 'my' reality.I think of dimensions as emanating from the physical world vibrating through consciousness. We have created tools and technology as gateways to these dimensions, I think. These gateways are the wormholes to other dimensions. According to the M Theory there are ten dimensions in space and 1 for time.I believe we just didn't invent these tools and technology for whatever purpose but we can use them to tap into the other dimensions of space and time. But sometimes I just like to call them levels of consciousness because it would take a lot of thought processes to come up with a mathematical formula for them. But I'd like to think that the code I discovered can somehow be applied to this theory. That's weird science for me. lol

Well likewise here.i try to keep a strict seperation, particularly after reading a long discussion by a theoretical phycisist, that started on atheism (which has various forms) ending in disproving the existence of god, with the obvious use of what we in the ordinary newtonian world would call flawed reasoning, but that works on quantum scales.The mother board of my old computer blew and i did not print it, so lost.The gist would be that such strings (to keep it simple) could only exist in vacuum, and be vacuum on miniscule scales and would then still leave frankly a whole lot of nothing as the main characteristic of the universe.Now back to traveling without moving and other mind-trips.Those particles that are you, would thus all be part of the minority and connected (we breath the same air as what once was a neanderthal f.i.), so therefore to be normal you would have to be over the top schizo and multiple personality disorder as well as capable of being a stone or a star. Since al that matter in you has been all these things too.

And only your reference frame keeps you sane.Well that was a trip and a halve.

<quoted text>And I agree too! That is why the best therapy for behaviors that one enjoys but the majority takes exception to is to practice discreetness.I've already made several comments to the effect that politicizing behaviors that could be obsessive-compulsive is cruel and irresponsible. I've already stated that stigma prevents people from seeking professional help.People don't see the big picture when they want to act out. Well, I do expect people to be accountable for their bad behavior. Remarkably enough, I am not so childish that I'm going to act out in a similar fashion just to dominate. The question for you is whether or not you trust me that way or will you stick with a familiar hall of mirrors.This Cheshire cat has had his say!

Cool, cool.

I'd like to first state that the main thrust of my posts was to dismiss the claim that same sex sexual behavior (homosexuality in Western cultures) is a mental disorder, unnatural or could not be produced by evolution.

From that point, the realization that it's quite common in primates and cannot be said to be unnatural, the question of morality is a societal problem. Not a problem of evolutionary science - as science requires the temporary stasis of value judgments. If you cannot remove your (in the general sense, not you in particular) value judgments, you can't produce good science. Once the science is understood, it's up for philosophers, thinkers, whoever, to debate morality and societal action.

Second, in your post above this one, you write:

To me, marriage should just be a word but it's also a matter of legal precedent. When the state performs acts of gay marriage, that legitimizes the lifestyle and declares it a state endorsed institution.

That's quite clearly a political stance. Why are you taking it - what reasons do you have to legitimize your stance here?

First: homosexuality isn't a "lifestyle." It's not comparable to the choice to eat healthy and work out or be a gamer or a skier, for example. It's a sexual identity - in Western cultures, sexual identities are integral to one's person (and personal identity). Other cultures don't focus no sex and sexuality to this degree.

Second, who cares if homosexual marriages legitimize homosexuality? What possible damage will that do?

Do you believe that the legal legitimization of homosexuality will cause the sun to explode? All life on Earth to vanish? Children to decide to eat other children? Seriously, what? The erosion of morality leading to cannibalism???

You know what? Gays don't want you to be gay. They don't look at you and think "hmmm, I can convert that lovely piece of meat." And if they did, no amount of them doing that will turn you gay. You're fine. If you're straight, and comfortable being straight, with no hidden issues or skeletons in your closet, you aren't going to suddenly wake up wanting to get razor burn kissing some guy (if you're a guy) or bumper to bumper action (if you're a chick).

No matter what rights the homosexuals are awarded, you as a person, will not be affected. The economy might go up with the increase in spending for weddings and adoption (and then the cost of children) and honeymoon vacations and extra taxes and all that, but trust me, you're going to be totally ok.

<quoted text>And I agree too! That is why the best therapy for behaviors that one enjoys but the majority takes exception to is to practice discreetness.I've already made several comments to the effect that politicizing behaviors that could be obsessive-compulsive is cruel and irresponsible. I've already stated that stigma prevents people from seeking professional help.People don't see the big picture when they want to act out. Well, I do expect people to be accountable for their bad behavior. Remarkably enough, I am not so childish that I'm going to act out in a similar fashion just to dominate. The question for you is whether or not you trust me that way or will you stick with a familiar hall of mirrors.This Cheshire cat has had his say!

btw, it's nice having a non-insulting discussion with you. And I apologize for my harsh attitude. I'm really bitchy and unkind sometimes. I try not to be, and I feel bad after I've been that way, and so thank you for not holding a grudge and for your continued pleasantness despite me and my ranting.

What I'm doing is mostly pointing out "style". People in a certain class can do things without thinking while others are expected to observe different rules. The "Evolution vs. Creationism" debate has it's roots in that, and I felt it was time to represent the conservative elements without the messy conundrums of religiosity!

Yeah, me too, being pushed into the underclass economically, while having the status of the upper class. It's a strange, strange life.

<quoted text><quoted text>I agree<quoted text>Huh? The end of humanity? What do you mean?

Uhm...that was mean being sarcastic. A few people on here seem to think that the world would end if gays were allowed to marry. I don't know why they think so. I personally find the concept of inequality among disparate people repulsive, so I can't imagine why a society as advanced in so many ways as America would deny homosexuals the institution - and dignity - of marriage.

<quoted text>Uhm...that was mean being sarcastic. A few people on here seem to think that the world would end if gays were allowed to marry. I don't know why they think so. I personally find the concept of inequality among disparate people repulsive, so I can't imagine why a society as advanced in so many ways as America would deny homosexuals the institution - and dignity - of marriage.

<quoted text>Cool, cool.I'd like to first state that the main thrust of my posts was to dismiss the claim that same sex sexual behavior (homosexuality in Western cultures) is a mental disorder,....

I completely disagree with the claim that gays don't recruit. Gays do try to "convert" or, at least like most tender male egos, get all blustery when confronted with rejection.

I've already said MY politics is about prejudice against single people who are in the minority, but close to becoming the majority. Marriage is about financial incentives to raise kids from the State's perspective. The church influences the State in an unconstitutional way and a lot proceeds from there.

Prejudice in the workplace becomes prejudice in the ability to afford healthcare which becomes prejudice in insurance rates. I can understand the rationalization for demanding marriage. I just resent the idea of having the minority take on tax burdens for the majority, and the hypocrisy of demanding inclusion in church based prejudice.

Other than those reasons, I have had little to say on the subject other than that I find homosexuality trivial compared to other forms of discrimination. Most people hear the word discrimination and they immediately think "whiny, litigious, American Black. There is some truth to that stereotype but there is also truth that being Black is not something you can hide.

For my part, I somewhat take exception to that simple attitude towards justice. A person is who they are on the inside too. I know that I can say that married men get preferential treatment in the workplace and suddenly every issue that I bring up is written off as whining. Well, "rocking the boat" is taboo in this economy but it is the very nature of change. For better or for worse, change WILL happen so it's best to listen and consider change that is for the collective betterment.

People don't like to be around those who are strange to them. It's human nature and the "melting pot" concept is unsound. Diversity is the result of evolution, not self-expression. THAT is how this whole debate becomes linked together into a circle of necessary scientific discipline, not just leveraging one's politics by claiming evolution as being on the side of righteousness. So really, consider the value of marriage in it's entirety and ask yourself if it is just a relic of old prejudices.

Cool, cool.I'd like to first state that the main thrust of my posts was to dismiss the claim that same sex sexual behavior (homosexuality in Western cultures) is a mental disorder,..

anonymous wrote:

I completely disagree with the claim that gays don't recruit. Gays do try to "convert" or, at least like most tender male egos, get all blustery when confronted with rejection.

What part of what you quoted from me implies that I argued gays don't recruit?

Are you referring to me explaining to you that if gay marriage were state sanctioned, you'd stay a heterosexual? I'm pretty sure, recruiting or not, you'd still be straight. Unless...unless...there's some hidden desire you have?

I've already said MY politics is about prejudice against single people who are in the minority, but close to becoming the majority. Marriage is about financial incentives to raise kids from the State's perspective. The church influences the State in an unconstitutional way and a lot proceeds from there.Prejudice in the workplace becomes prejudice in the ability to afford healthcare which becomes prejudice in insurance rates. I can understand the rationalization for demanding marriage. I just resent the idea of having the minority take on tax burdens for the majority, and the hypocrisy of demanding inclusion in church based prejudice.Other than those reasons, I have had little to say on the subject other than that I find homosexuality trivial compared to other forms of discrimination. Most people hear the word discrimination and they immediately think "whiny, litigious, American Black. There is some truth to that stereotype but there is also truth that being Black is not something you can hide.For my part, I somewhat take exception to that simple attitude towards justice. A person is who they are on the inside too. I know that I can say that married men get preferential treatment in the workplace and suddenly every issue that I bring up is written off as whining. Well, "rocking the boat" is taboo in this economy but it is the very nature of change. For better or for worse, change WILL happen so it's best to listen and consider change that is for the collective betterment.People don't like to be around those who are strange to them. It's human nature and the "melting pot" concept is unsound. Diversity is the result of evolution, not self-expression. THAT is how this whole debate becomes linked together into a circle of necessary scientific discipline, not just leveraging one's politics by claiming evolution as being on the side of righteousness. So really, consider the value of marriage in it's entirety and ask yourself if it is just a relic of old prejudices.

Wow...ok...you know, I think I'll just avoid what you wrote above and let it stand on its own.

<quoted text>Plumage is a survival strategy, it is how the species improves it's genetic diversity. You speak from ignorance, that is easy to see, but you should actually look up and study something before making assertions. There are also many instances of homosexuality in many animals, we are not unique in that regard. That is what bothers you most, I am betting, having to admit that we are indeed animals.

I think the improvement to genetic diversity is more a by-product than some goal. Natural selection, gene transfer, genetic drift ... all the mechanisms of evolution aren't working to improve genetic diversity, but the impact of each increases genetic diiversity. I know, sort of a 'split-hair' difference, but an important one. The process isn't working toward a goal, or else you might have to make a case for a goalie :-) There we go, God the ultimate goalie :-)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.